Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint already establishes this as a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about mode-specific results, mutual exclusivity, and the underlying GET endpoints, but it does not mention pagination, empty results, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded, covering all three modes, the mutual-exclusivity rule, and endpoint mapping without wasted prose. Sentence fragments are used efficiently rather than being vague.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly in every mode. Annotations cover safety, and the description covers parameter interaction, returned content, and endpoint behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds useful semantics by explaining what each parameter changes in the response and by noting that transporter_code is the value channable_ship_order expects.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource and explains exactly what is returned in each of three modes: no argument, transporter_code, and channel. It also connects the tool to channable_ship_order, making its role distinguishable from sibling order and return tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly documents all three usage modes and gives a clear constraint: 'Give at most one of the two.' The reference to channable_ship_order further clarifies why an agent would fetch transporter codes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.